Prof Elley worked through a few case studies in some depth.  This one :-

 By the end of Year 4 students will read, respond to and think critically about texts in order to meet the reading demands of the NZ Reading Curriculum. Students will locate and evaluate information and ideas within texts appropriate to their level, as they generate and answer questions to meet specific learning purposes….”

So what does Prof Elley tell us is wrong with the standard:-

 1. It does not state how well they should read the texts.

 2. It does not state how difficult the texts need to be.

 3. It does not tell how difficult the questions are that assess the student’s  ability.

 4. It does not tell how well they should evaluate the text.

To be fair there was some guidance for teachers:-

    The texts used for assessing will often include: Some abstract ideas

Some implicit ideas, to be worked out by inference.

Straightforward text structures

Some compound and complex sentences

Some unfamiliar words and phrases

Other visual language features

Figurative language (similes, metaphors, etc)

He makes the point that each of these points requires further teacher judgement.

And the one of the world’s leading assessment experts uses pretty simple language to outline why moderation becomes necessary to have a national standard. He reminded us that the development of NCEA moderation took about a decade – and even after a few years refinement it is still not perfect. The idea that you could have a properly moderated national standard in a few months is just a nonsense because of a series of judgements which can compound the range of results:-

  1) the difficulty of the text chosen

 2) whether the child has seen it before.

 3) whether they have time to read it before the test.

 4) whether they read it aloud or silently.

 5) whether they’re assessed by their teacher or a stranger

 6) whether the questions are literal or inferential.

 7) whether the questions are multi-choice or open-ended

 8) whether they are arranged in the same order as in the text.

 9) whether they are arranged from easy to hard.

 10) whether they are answered orally or in writing.

 11) how harshly the teacher marks the answers.

So getting national standards right isn’t easy. An there is no sign that Anne tolley understands this.

Prof Warwick Elley gave an example from an observation he had done when the English were introducing their standards based approach. :-

 Miss Latham, Principal of Dymchurch Country School, UK.

Tested 58 Yr 2 pupils 3 times, for National from a prescribed list for Yr 2.

She selected passages from 3 different books.      

She  prepared comprehension questions on each and tested each child individually.

On Book 1, 90% of the pupils passed the standard.

On Book 2, 72% of the pupils passed the standard.

On Book 3, 38% of the pupils passed the standard. 

Which result should she report to the Board?

I went to a meeting on Tolley’s standards on the North Shore on Wednesday night.  Emeritus Prof Warwick Elley (yes the co-developer of the Elley-Irving scale) spoke. Must be in his eighties but is very very sharp and to the point. Here are his first twenty reasons not to introduce standards. I’m going to schedule more of the points he made over Easter.

1.  The National Standards policy assumes “One Size Fits All”. BUT – each child should work to his/her own standard. 

2. The Standards have been hastily prepared by committees, and untested for difficulty.

3. The wording of the Standards is vague and capable of many interpretations.

4. There is no research showing that NCEA Level 2 lines up with the progress levels indicated by the National Standards.

5. The sources that teachers make their judgements on will vary widely, making comparisons quite unfair.

 6. The advice on moderating teacher judgements is naive, and ignores the problems which have dogged such policies.

 7. When results are made public, league tables will follow, and many assessments will  soon become  “High Stakes”.

8. High Stakes testing for accountability in this way interferes with the formative value of assessment.

9. Teachers will feel pressured to waste time coaching their children on standardised tests, thus invalidating them.

10. Overseas experience shows that other key subjects in the curriculum will be downgraded.

11. Teaching will lose much of its spark and spontaneity, and children become bored. 

12. Bright children and slow learners will be ignored, as  gains in their achievements won’t be reflected in schools’ results.

13. Schools will be judged unfairly, as the assessments largely reflect the school’s socio-economic status, not progress made.  

14.Overseas experience shows these policies do not reduce the size of the tail of under-achievement.

15.Many of the students who do not reach the standards will be judged and labelled as “failures”.

16. Dedicated teachers who work in low-decile schools will soon seek to move, rather than remain in a failing situation.

17. More teacher time will be spent on assessing, reporting and moderating, rather than teaching.

18. The “long tail” is dominated by ESOL pupils, Maori & Pasifika pupils,  and others who are disabled or disturbed. Standards won’t change this.

19. This policy will require full cooperation of teachers. Most disapprove, so full cooperation is unlikely.

20.“Big Shake-Ups” always require a period of trial before implementation, as so many things can go wrong.